From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-16 06:10:12
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 20:14, David Abrahams wrote:
> > If not, using a compiler options can be more reasonable.
> Of course; I've been around the block a few times on this one.
For the benefit of other non-native english speakers here:
> > I tend to believe that the validation can be just disabled. It's a
> > maintenance nightmare to handle all cases where we should relax
> > validation, like conditional properties.
> I'm a little afraid of losing checking for things like spelling errors
> and people mistakenly using Bbv1 feature names that you've changed in
> v2. Maybe we just need to do validation much less often and in only a
> few specific places, like the flags rule. That way, no validation
> becomes the default and we start thinking about places where we want
> to put it in.
I've started by removing the only call to 'validate' that prevents putting
unknown feature values in requirements. So now
lib a : : <name>a_gcc <toolset>gcc ;
lib a : : <name>a_msc <toolset>msvc ;
should work even if msvc is not initialized at all.
If we find a need to add validation back to some specific places, we'll do it.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk